Whether or not an input tax credit has been obtained unfairly by a false tax invoice.

Since the evidence submitted is difficult to be recognized as an actual transaction, it is legitimate to make a corrective disposition that deducts input tax amount due to a false tax invoice without real transaction.

Articles 17 and 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On July 4, 2005, the Defendant revoked each disposition of value-added tax of KRW 70,231,753 and value-added tax of KRW 34,602,266 for the second period of time of 2001 against the Plaintiff on July 4, 2005 (it is obvious that “70,231,743” as stated in the purport of the claim in the single complaint is a clerical error of KRW 70,231,753 as stated in the statement of claim).

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or if Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, and 4-2, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6-2, 5, Eul evidence 7, and 9-1 and 2 respectively, they can be acknowledged, and there is no other counter-proof.

A. From February 10, 2001, the Plaintiff: (a) from around 10, 2001 to ○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○; (b) closed the business on September 6, 2005; (c) on January 18, 2001, the Plaintiff opened a vice governor for Nonparty company’s ○○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○; (d) purchased a telecommunication terminal device from Nonparty company to sell it in the ○○○○○○-dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○; and (e) concluded a contract on a branch office with Nonparty company to act on behalf of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

B. The Plaintiff reported to the Defendant the tax base and the respective tax amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 201 and the first period of 2003, as indicated in each return column in the attached tax calculation table (hereinafter referred to as the “tax calculation table”), and received refund from the Defendant for the second period of 2001, the input tax amount of 34,512,608 and the first period of 24,794,576.

C. As a result of the investigation of the tax data conducted by the Plaintiff on June 4, 2005, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff unfairly deducted the input tax amount using the total purchase tax amount of KRW 384,200,000 in 201 and the total purchase tax amount of KRW 267,00,00 in 203 and the total purchase tax amount of KRW 267,00,000 in 200 in 201 as indicated in each correction column of the tax calculation table on July 4, 2005, when the Plaintiff filed each tax base and amount of the value-added tax on the second term portion of 201 and the first term value-added tax on the first term portion of 203 and each tax amount on the second term portion of 203; and then imposed the Plaintiff the value-added tax on the second term portion of 201, the value-added tax on the second term portion of 70,231,753 and 137,2003.

D. However, upon considering the Plaintiff’s financial data on September 1, 2005, the Defendant recognized 267,00,000,000 won of the purchase tax invoice for the first period period of 203, which was recognized as the initial processing tax invoice for the first period of 2003, as the actual transaction amount. The Defendant, as indicated in the re-revision column of the tax calculation sheet, calculated the tax base and the amount of the value-added tax for the first period of 2003 as the initial 37,727,100 won to reduce or correct the amount of the value-added tax for 34,602,26 won from the initial 37,727,100 won to the initial 34,602,26 won (hereinafter referred to as “the remaining amount of the value-added tax for the second period of 201”) and the remaining amount of the value-added tax for the first period of 137,276,267,267.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is a legitimate disposition in accordance with the relevant statutes.

On the other hand, the plaintiff actually purchased a total of KRW 384,200,000 from the non-party company from January 1, 2003 to June 30 of the same year the sum of KRW 267,00,000 from the non-party company's communication terminal devices such as ○○, etc. to the non-party company from July 1, 2001 to December 31 of the same year, and received each tax invoice, and thereafter deducted each corresponding input tax amount. Nevertheless, the defendant asserted that the total of KRW 384,20,200,00 and the total of KRW 267,00,00 from the non-party company's communication terminal devices such as ○○, etc. should not be deducted from the total of KRW 267,00,00,000 from the total of KRW 267,00,000, the total of KRW 200,708,204,000.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) In light of the following: (a) ○○ Bank Co., Ltd.; (b) ○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; (c) ○○○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; (d) ○○○○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; and (e) ○○○○○○○○ Branch of ○○ Bank; and (e) 1, 2, 4-2, 7-2, 10, 10-1 through 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18 through 21; and (e) 1, 14, 18 through 21; and (e) 48, 308, 484, 208, 484, 208, 208, 3084, 408, 208, 380, 408, 200, 408, 208, 2008, 304, 2, etc.

(2) 한편 전항의 인정 사실에 반하는 듯한(바꾸어 말하면 원고가 소외 회사로부터 교부받은 2001년 제2기분 매입세금계산서 매입금 합계 384,200,000원 상당과 2003년 제1기분 매입세금계산서 합계 244,885,100원 상당이 진정한 세금계산서라는 원고의 주장에 부합하는 듯한) 갑 제2 내지 44호증, 갑 48호증의 1 내지 13, 갑 제49, 50, 51호증, 갑 제52호증의 1, 2, 갑 제53호증, 갑 제54호증의 1, 2, 갑 제55호증, 갑 제56호증의 1 내지 9, 갑 제57 내지 61호증, 을 제8호증의 각 기재, 갑 제45, 46, 47호증의 각 영상 및 증인 ○○○, ○○○의 각 증언은, ① 원고의 2001년 제2기분과 2003년 제1기분 각 매출액이 40,107,704원과 28,044,300원에 불과한 반면, 원고가 신고한 2001년 제2기분과 2003년 제1기분 각 매입액은 385,233,850원과 275,990,060원으로서 그 각 매출액의 약 9.6배와 약 9.8배에 달하는바, 이는 원고의 영업 속에는 ○○○ 등 통신단말기기 판매업뿐만 아니라 통신기기 설치업과 ○○○○○ 가입대행업 등이 포함되어 있는 점에 비추어 쉽게 수긍하기 어려운 점, ② 원고가 소외 회사에 지급하였다고 주장하는 570,822,600원 중 2002. 6. 26.자 계좌송금액 53,940,000원, 그 해 7. 10.자 계좌송금액 27,389,127원, 그해 8. 8.자 계좌송금액 87,860,873원, 그해 11. 8.자 계좌송금액 45,000,000원, 그 해 12. 5.자 계좌송금액 70,000,000원, 그 달 6.자 계좌송금액 23,900,000원과 2003. 6. 30.자 계좌송금액 22,114,900원 합계 330,194,900원을 제외한 나머지 240,627,700원(570,822,600원 - 330,194,900원)에 관하여는 그 자금출처 등에 관한 금융자료 등의 객관적인 증빙자료가 전혀 없는 점(2003. 6. 30.자 계좌송금액 22,114,900원은 피고가 이 사건 처분을 함에 있어 실거래가액으로 인정하여 그에 관한 매입세액을 공제하였음), ③ 2002. 6. 26.자 계좌송금액 53,940,000원, 그 해 7. 10.자 계좌송금액 27,389,127원 그해 8. 8.자 계좌송금액 87,860,873원, 그해 12. 5.자 계좌송금액 70,000,000원, 그 달 6.자 계좌송금액 23,900,000원 합계 263,090,000원은 소외 회사의 대표이사 ○○○, 그 ○○이사 ○○○과 그 직원 ○○○, ○○○ 등이 소외 회사 인근의 은행지점에서 입·출금한 점, ④○○정보통신 주식회사는 2002. 6. 말경과 그해 9. 말경 원고와 소외 회사와의 사이에 모두 5회에 걸쳐 실물거래가 없는 허위의 세금계산서 공급가액 합계 7억 4000만원 상당을 수수하는 위장업체인데, 원고는 ○○정보통신 주식회사와의 사이에 허위세금계산서 거래로 형사처벌(징역 8월, 집행유예 2년)까지 받은 점(을 제10호증의 1 내지 6의 각 기재), ⑤ 그런데 2002. 11. 8.자 계좌송금액 45,000,000원은 원고가 2002. 11. 7. ○○정보통신주식회사로부터 입금받아서 그 다음날 이를 인출하여 소외 회사의 계좌로 입금한 것인 점(갑 제11호증, 을 제18호증의 각 기재), ⑥ 2002. 12. 5.자 계좌송금액 70,000,000원 및 그 달 6.자 계좌송금액 23,900,000원도 2002. 12. 4. ○○정보통신 주식회사의 예금계좌에서 원고의 예금계좌로 입금되었다가 그달 5.과 그달 6. 인출되어 소외 회사의 예금계좌로 입금된 것인 점, ⑦ 원고가 소외 회사로 ○○○ 등 통신단말기기를 매입하였다고 주장하는 일자와 원고가 소외 회사에게 그 대금을 지급하였다고 주장하는 일자 사이에 상당히 큰 시차가 있는 점, ⑧ 계좌송금액 합계 330,194,900원 중 2002. 6. 26.자 계좌송금액 53,940,000원, 그해 7. 10.자 계좌송금액 27,389,127원, 그해 8. 8.자 계좌송금액 87,860,873원은 모두 소외 회사의 대표이사 ○○○등의 개인예금계좌에서 인출되어 소외 회사의 예금계좌로 입금된 것인 점, ⑨ 원고의 주장에 따르면, 원고는 2001. 2. 10.경부터 2004. 6. 22.경까지 사이에 수십 차례에 걸쳐 ○○○등 통신단말기기를 외상으로 매입하고 그 외상대금을 지급하였기 때문에 그 외상대금의 잔액이 수시로 크게 변동하였을 것인바, 그럼에도 불구하고 원고가 그 각 거래 당시마다 외상대금의 잔액을 확인한 장부 등의 증거자료를 전혀 제출하지 못하고 있는 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때 이를 믿기 어렵다.

(3) Therefore, in calculating the Plaintiff’s tax base for the second period portion of 2001, the Plaintiff’s disposition in the instant case, which did not deduct the input tax amount corresponding to each amount in calculating the Plaintiff’s tax base for the second period portion of 2001, and the first period portion of 267,000,000 won for the first period portion of 203, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s total purchase tax amount of KRW 244,885,10 (267,00,000 - 22,114,90) is a false tax invoice, is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion against this is not acceptable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

the sum table of the amounts of taxes;

(unit: Won)

Progress of Report and Disposition

Sub-paragraph (b)

For the second period of 2001

From July 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001

For the first term, 2003

From January 1, 2003 to June 30 of the same year)

Shin Jin high

G. G. M.S.

Shin Jin high

G. G. M.S.

J. G. M. M. M.

Tax Base

(Sales)

40,107,704

40,107,704

28,044,300

28,044,300

28,044,300

Tax Rate

10%

10%

10%

10%

10%

Sales amount

4,010,776

4,010,770

2,804,430

2,804,430

2,804,430

Purchase Price

385,233,850

1,033,850

275,990,060

8,990,060

31,104,950

Purchase Tax Amount

38,523,385

103,385

27,599,006

899,006

3,110,495

Amount of tax credit

-34,512,608

3,907,385

-24,794,576

1,905,424

-306,065

Unfair Refund

Additional Collection Tax Amount

34,512,608

24,794,576

24,488,511

Additional Tax

31,811,760

11,027,100

10,113,755

Amount of tax notified after deduction

(Refunded Tax Amount)

(34,512,608)

70,231,753

(24,794,576)

37,727,100

34,602,266

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 17 (Payable Tax Amount)

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as "paid tax amount") shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as "purchase tax amount") from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him/her (hereinafter referred to as "sales tax amount"): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter referred to

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1. An input tax amount in case where the list of the total tax invoices by customer is not submitted under Article 20 (1) and (2), or an input tax amount on the portion not entered or entered differently from the fact, in case where the whole or part of the registration numbers or supply values by transaction parties is not entered or entered differently from the fact, from among the entered items on the list of the total tax invoices by customer submitted: Provided, That the input tax

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a “necessary entry item”) is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be excluded;

former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 21

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office, or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

1. Where the final tax return is not filed;

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

4. Where there is a possibility of evading the value-added tax due to the causes as determined by the Presidential Decree other than subparagraphs 1 through 3.

(2) Where the head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service revises or revises the tax base and amount of tax payable or refundable for each taxable period pursuant to paragraph (1), he/she shall do so on the basis of tax invoices, books, and other evidence:

1. Where tax invoices, books, and other evidence necessary for calculating the tax base do not exist or important parts are incomplete;

2. Where the contents of the tax account books and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the scale of facilities, the number of employees, and the market prices of raw materials, commodities, products, or various charges;

3. Where the details of tax invoices, books, and other documentary evidence are obviously false in light of the quantity of raw materials used, quantity of power used, and other operational conditions.

(3) Where any error or omission is found in the tax base and tax amount paid or refundable in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), the head of the competent district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or